LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-109

BMIC LIMITED Vs. CHINNAKANNANSIVASANKARAN AND ORS.

Decided On April 13, 2016
Bmic Limited Appellant
V/S
Chinnakannansivasankaran And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant for a better part of a hour and half.

(2.) If we may say, the unnecessary controversy has arisen on account of a simple issue of the execution petition not being numbered, as it is an execution within the meaning of Sec. 44 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the decree holder has arrayed as parties who are not before the Court which passed the decree. This appears to be the objection on the registry.

(3.) The matter got further complicated as the appellant/decree holder was insistent on having the applications for interim reliefs heard first without the execution petition being numbered, obviously in his anxiety to somehow secure some amount for satisfaction of the decree. The case of the appellant is that the corporate veil should be pierced in respect of respondent company and even the relatives of the judgment debtor are actually holding the moneys on behalf of the judgment debtor. This is something for the decree holder to establish and we are only noting the allegation.